TEJ NARAYAN YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard parties and perused the records of this case.

(2.) Through this writ application the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhepura in Land Dispute Case No. 44/12, by which allegedly he has declared the title and possession of the disputed land of the respondent no. 5.

(3.) The petitioner claims to have purchased the lands of plot nos. 602, 603, 612 appertaining to Khata no. 375/1010 as well as Plot Nos. 1653, 1654, 1655, 1656 and 1657 appertaining to Khata No. 111/429 of total area of 3 acres 2 decimals of Mauza Israin Khurd by the registered sale deed executed by the second wife of Haribhajan Yadav, namely, Mala Devi @ Dukhani Devi vide registered sale deed dated 4.1.2000 and, thereafter, an application was filed before the Circle Officer for their mutation in view of such purchase. However, the said land was already mutated in the name of the private respondent nos. 5 to 12. When no decision was taken by the Circle Officer on his application, the petitioner approached before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Madhepura in Mutation Case No. 10/2007 who, after hearing the parties, passed order dated 4.8.2009 in favour of the petitioner and directed for cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of the aforesaid private respondents and creating Jamabandi in the name of the petitioner. The aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Madhepura was put to challenge in Mutation Revision No. 17/2009 before the Collector cum District Magistrate, Madhepura who, after hearing the parties and perusal of the reports, came to the conclusion that there was a dispute with regard to the land, therefore, he directed the appellant respondent to approach the Deputy Collector Land Reforms under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the BLDR Act ) vide order dated 25.11.2011 as contained in Annexure 2. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Madhepura, thereafter, heard both the parties and passed the impugned order dated 4.7.2012 contained in Annexure 3. He has made observation that, for taking a decision with respect to the concerned dispute, it has to be determined as to (i) whether the second marriage of Haribhajan Yadav was valid one and (ii) what would be the right of her heirs with respect to the properties which were standing in the name of Haribhajan Yadav' He came to the conclusion that the matter relates to the aforesaid complicated question touching the title of the parties and, as such, the appropriate forum for redressal of grievance would be a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. However, at the same time he has declared the title of Ashok Kumar Sah, i.e., the respondent no. 5 till a decision is taken by the Civil Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid decision.